ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal held that the denial of FTC solely on the ground of belatedly filing Form 67 is not justified, as the filing of Form 67 is a directory and procedural requirement, not a mandatory one. The Tribunal followed its coordinate bench's decision in a similar case, directing the AO to condone the delay and allow the FTC claim.

The Tribunal held that the notice dated 04.10.2018 was ambiguous as the assessee had already complied with the initial notice dated 02.07.2018, which was reflected in the assessment order. Therefore, there was no non-compliance warranting penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was erroneously transferred and decided by the Addl/JCIT(A) as the issue involved the rejection of a Section 154 application, and the appeal was filed under Section 246A, not Section 246. Therefore, the order passed by the Addl/JCIT(A) was beyond their jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the denial of FTC solely on the ground of belatedly filing Form 67 is not justified, as the filing of Form 67 is a directory and procedural requirement, not a mandatory one. The Tribunal followed its coordinate bench's decision in a similar case, directing the AO to condone the delay and allow the FTC claim.

The Tribunal held that the assessment year 2014-15 falls beyond the 6-year period specified in Section 153C(1) of the Act, considering the relevant date for calculating this period. The conclusion of the CIT(A) on this matter was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was obligated to first adjudicate the legal grounds of appeal, specifically the challenge to the reassessment proceedings, before setting aside the order. The CIT(A) had mechanically followed a provision without addressing the primary legal objections.

The Tribunal held that the date of reckoning for calculating the six assessment years for reopening in the case of a non-searched person is when the seized material was handed over to the AO. Following precedents, the CIT(A)'s conclusion that the assessment orders were liable to be annulled was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the date of reckoning for calculating the six assessment years for reopening in the case of a non-searched person is when the seized material was handed over to the AO. Following precedents, the CIT(A)'s conclusion that the assessment orders were liable to be annulled was upheld.

The Tribunal noted that the notices were allegedly not effectively served on the assessee due to an incorrect email ID. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, provided the assessee complies with all statutory notices.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's challenges to the jurisdiction and reassessment proceedings. Recognizing that justice would be served by a thorough examination, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the AO's reasons for reopening were based solely on the investigation wing report without independent application of mind. The AO did not independently examine the assessee's financials or return to verify the alleged accommodation entries, treating the report as sacrosanct.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to reasonable cause shown by the assessee. However, the additional grounds for admission were not admitted as the assessee's counsel could not substantiate the claim of non-compliance with mandatory conditions under Sections 147 to 151. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision regarding the disallowance under Section 40A(3) as the assessee failed to provide evidence for the claim under Rule 6DD and lacked confirmation from M/s Uflex Ltd.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to reasonable cause shown by the assessee. However, the additional grounds for admission were not admitted as the assessee's counsel could not substantiate the claim of non-compliance with mandatory conditions under Sections 147 to 151. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision regarding the disallowance under Section 40A(3) as the assessee failed to provide evidence for the claim under Rule 6DD and lacked confirmation from M/s Uflex Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot create a new head of income and that the subsequent addition amounted to an enhancement of income without following due procedure. The CIT(A)'s action was not based on a correct understanding of the facts.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued in violation of Section 151(ii) because the approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner, as more than three years had elapsed since the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, issued under Section 119 of the Act, governs jurisdiction and prevails. The issuance of the notice u/s 143(2) by an authority not competent based on the declared income vitiates the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on borrowed satisfaction and a mere change of opinion, without independent inquiry or establishing a nexus between the material and the belief of escaped income. Therefore, the reassessment order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that income from REC certificates and interest income on fixed deposits used for procuring loans for the eligible business have a direct nexus and are eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. The grounds raised by the department were rejected.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order disposing of the rectification proceedings stated there was no apparent mistake on record. The assessee's grievance stemmed from an outstanding demand related to an additional refund received, and the subsequent rectification proceedings did not address this issue.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits represented gross collections made by the assessee on behalf of principal companies in his capacity as a collection agent, and not the assessee's own income. The assessee retained only a nominal commission, which was duly offered to tax. The Tribunal noted that the bank statements clearly showed a pass-through of funds with no accumulation or personal use, and followed precedent that only commission earned by an agent is taxable.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to dispose of the assessee's objections by passing a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment is fatal to the validity of the reassessment. The dismissal of an SLP in limine does not constitute a binding precedent.

The Tribunal noted that in a preceding year, on similar facts, the GP was estimated at 0.40%. Following this precedent and for substantial justice, the Tribunal inclined to estimate the GP at 0.40% of the gross sales for the current assessment year.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the addition was unsustainable. It noted that a co-ordinate bench had deleted a similar addition in the case of Zia Rathi, holding that the cash deposits were explained by sales proceeds and not unexplained money.

The Tribunal held that the interest expenses on past borrowings were for business purposes and allowable. Depreciation, compensation to employees (including VRS), and provision for bad debts were either already adjusted by the assessee or necessary for the closure process. The disallowance of 'other expenses' was deleted as the amount was not verifiable. The appeal by the revenue lacked merit.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the facts and evidence presented by the Revenue, particularly concerning the genuineness of the transactions and the assessee's failure to provide sufficient supporting documents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 3,95,66,691/- (25% of purchases) was made on an ad-hoc basis without rejecting the books of accounts. It also noted that the addition of creditors under Section 68, which included opening creditors and net creditors for purchases, amounted to double taxation as a portion of purchases was already added under Section 69C. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided documents in remand proceedings regarding the lenders and repayment of loans and share application money. The Tribunal questioned the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the grounds without proper verification. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment completed without issuing a notice under section 143(2) of the Act, after a return was filed in response to a notice under section 148, is bad in law and void ab initio. Such an assessment is vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the AO's satisfaction under section 153C recorded on 08.01.2016, makes 08.01.2016 the deemed date of search, and AY 2016-17 the search year. Since AY 2014-15 falls within the six preceding assessment years, the assessment should have been under section 153C, not 143(3). Therefore, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) is void ab initio.

The Tribunal noted that in a preceding year, on similar facts, the GP was estimated at 0.40%. Following this precedent and for substantial justice, the Tribunal inclined to estimate the GP at 0.40% of the gross sales for the current assessment year.

The Tribunal held that income from car parking, interest on fixed deposits, permission charges, and license fees are eligible for deduction under Section 80-IAB, following previous decisions for group entities. The ground related to lease rent straight lining was dismissed as not pressed, and the ground on penalty proceedings was dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal held that the AO's deviation from the initial show cause notice proposal, which suggested an ad-hoc addition of 8% of turnover, to making specific additions/disallowances without a fresh notice, constituted a breach of Section 144B(1)(xii). This violation of the mandatory provision rendered the assessment order non-est.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 376 days in filing the appeal, finding no malafides. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee, as the Departmental Representative had no objection.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's earlier appeal and condonation application in violation of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, the 138-day delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were illegal and set aside. The Tribunal found that the reassessment was initiated beyond the period of limitation and was based on a change of opinion without tangible new material. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had offered the profit from the transaction to tax.

The Tribunal held that the commission expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning business income. The doubts raised by the tax authorities were based on conjectures and surmises, and the conditions of Section 37 of the Act were fulfilled. Certain other disallowances related to employment and business promotion expenses were also partly or fully allowed.

The Tribunal held that the receipts reflected in Form 26AS with TDS are indicative of taxability in the year of disclosure. The assessee's method of accounting, which adjusted receipts against work-in-progress without clear justification for deferring recognition, was not supported by the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies and allowed for the verification of margins and working capital adjustments. However, the levy of interest was upheld.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A was inapplicable as the funds originated from the client company and were used for business expenses, not for the personal enrichment of the assessees as undisclosed income. The Tribunal found no evidence of ownership or possession of cash by the assessees.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A was inapplicable as the funds originated from the client company and were used for business expenses, not for the personal enrichment of the assessees as undisclosed income. The Tribunal found no evidence of ownership or possession of cash by the assessees.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A was inapplicable as the funds originated from the client company and were used for business expenses, not for the personal enrichment of the assessees as undisclosed income. The Tribunal found no evidence of ownership or possession of cash by the assessees.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A was inapplicable as the funds originated from the client company and were used for business expenses, not for the personal enrichment of the assessees as undisclosed income. The Tribunal found no evidence of ownership or possession of cash by the assessees.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A was inapplicable as the funds originated from the client company and were used for business expenses, not for the personal enrichment of the assessees as undisclosed income. The Tribunal found no evidence of ownership or possession of cash by the assessees.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A was inapplicable as the funds originated from the client company and were used for business expenses, not for the personal enrichment of the assessees as undisclosed income. The Tribunal found no evidence of ownership or possession of cash by the assessees.

The Tribunal disagreed with the AO's reasoning that properties handed over in a fully habitable condition do not require improvements. It held that being habitable does not preclude an assessee from making further improvements as per their requirements and claiming the cost incurred under Section 48(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed necessary evidence before the AO, which was rejected. While the claim is allowable under Section 48(ii), it requires factual verification, which was not done by the AO or the DRP. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the AO's order and restored the matter to the AO's file. The AO was directed to allow the assessee's claim for indexed cost of improvement, which aggregated to Rs. 45,35,270/- (Rs. 20,05,395/- + Rs. 25,29,875/-), after examining the evidence and providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was granted liberty to furnish further evidence. Grounds of appeal 5 to 8 were allowed for statistical purposes. Grounds 1 to 4 were dismissed as not pressed.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s powers are co-terminus with the Assessing Officer and the appeal should have been decided on merits or remanded. The CIT(A) failed to issue a notice under section 250(2)(a), violating natural justice.

The Tribunal held that for the purpose of Section 54F, the assessee is deemed to have 'purchased' the property even if a registered sale deed was not executed, as long as the money was spent. The AO erred in not following settled legal principles regarding Section 54F claims.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A was inapplicable as the funds originated from the client company and were used for business expenses, not for the personal enrichment of the assessees as undisclosed income. The Tribunal found no evidence of ownership or possession of cash by the assessees.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A was inapplicable as the funds originated from the client company and were used for business expenses, not for the personal enrichment of the assessees as undisclosed income. The Tribunal found no evidence of ownership or possession of cash by the assessees.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A was inapplicable as the funds originated from the client company and were used for business expenses, not for the personal enrichment of the assessees as undisclosed income. The Tribunal found no evidence of ownership or possession of cash by the assessees.